Pharmacy VS Optometry

[sealyme01]

That graduate optometrist salary only applies for those who actually find a job and works for another more experienced optometrist. Often this is not permanent as the more experienced optometrist will find more fresh graduates as time goes and in most cases, you will be forced to leave the job. You will be eventually forced to open your own shop, leading to competition and thus, a reduced salary. Ultimately however, optom is a business and most of the cash flows in by making profits from selling glasses. Thus your salary will be influenced by how well you sell glasses.

It gets really frustrating when things are told as fact by people who have no idea. What exactly is your source AznAssassin? Are you an optometrist yourself? (it's a rhetorical question as I already know the answer).

"Actually find a job" - the graduate job find rate is 100%. Do you know of a single person who has graduated from optometry and still unemployed after they finish uni.

"forced to open your own shop" - umm no, that is a choice, which is fortunately still there (though fading with the increasing corporatisation of the industry). But not necessary. Some choose to work as employees their whole life, and do very well.

"salary influenced by how well you sell glasses" - some workplaces (especially Luxottica) have contracts that include bonuses for performance including how much the store makes from glasses. However many many do not. For example I earn 105k + super (I'm 23) and I can prescribe any product I feel is best for my patient (literally I have access to any product on the market, and am not 'recommended' to sell any particular one) and my earnings are completely unaffected in ANY way by sales/glasses.

So, in conclusion, you're wrong. Stick to pharmacy.

 

[chinaski]

For example I earn 105k + super (I'm 23)

Just snipping that one out for the "ZOMG $50K as an intern is sooooooooo much I'd be stoked with earning that sort of moneyz!!!!1!" crew.

 

[tx2]

I suggest you take at the 'Job Outlook' site and check out the prospects of both pharm and optom. It's a government site which uses surveys and that sorta stuff to get info (which hopefully means it's fairly accurate)
https://jobsearch.gov.au/careers/pages/joboutlook.aspx

I looked at this last yr in yr12 to help me choose between optom, physio and pharmacy. From what I remember, it said that optom had an ave salary of 1250/wk and pharm was 1000/wk and optom supposedly had GREAT future prospects (low unemployment, high ave income etc) just last year, however, the site has been updated since. As of Nov 2009, the ave salary for optom has dropped slightly to 1150 whilst pharm salaries went up to 1250! Furthermore the prospects for pharmacy seem to be much better in the long term as they predict a much stronger growth in the industry.
As a current optom student, this slightly worries me (n)

 

[sid]

The Queensland Health pre-reg year for pharmacy just had a bit of a bump:

"The Pre-registration year is a HP3.1 salary which is $57136 per annum (does not include superannuation of up to 12.75% or annual leave loading of 17.5%) or $2190.00 per fortnight as at 1 September 2009."

https://www.health.qld.gov.au/workforus/pharmacy/docs/employment_info.pdf

But balance that with still low community pharmacy wages first year out and I think Vic health is 38K for pre-reg year still.

 

[crickethunger]

https://www.pharmacynews.com.au/article/Pharmacist-oversupply-predicted/514299.aspx

worrying outlook. Very worrying.

 

[thehairyfoot]

https://www.pharmacynews.com.au/article/Pharmacist-oversupply-predicted/514299.aspx

worrying outlook. Very worrying.

What other roles are the talking about in the 5th agreement?
I remember them talking about that agreement last year a bit in Pharmacy lectures. The idea of pharmacists being able to inject things like flu shots was something thrown around a bit. Along with Pharmacists being able to perform basic wound cleaning etc, and having basic prescribing rights for common things like antibiotics. Basically eating into GPs' pies.
But realistically I don't see this 'profession expansion' happening. GP's will fight tooth and nail to keep that bread-and-butter business of injections and antibiotics. And how are pharmacists going to afford the insurance required to take on these extra risks?
I would have a suspicion that this 5th agreement is going to try to push pharmacists to taking over more of the GP's work in the community. (basic gp's)
Will it realistically happen though? The way the industry is going with the discount pharmacy model, pharmacists are being further and further devalued and cheapened. And yet at the same time they are trying to turn around and say they can be more professional??? Already their training at universities (diagnosis, mixing, drug knowledge, interaction knowledge) is not being fully utilised, are more practicing rights going to be utilised? Or perhaps (i hope this doesn't happen) you'll end up with cheap diagnosis and injection clinics in the discount stores *shudder* I hate what corporations are doing to the health professions.

 

[crickethunger]

But realistically I don't see this 'profession expansion' happening. GP's will fight tooth and nail to keep that bread-and-butter business of injections and antibiotics.

Not necessarily. When there is enough nurse training funds are available lots of nurse practitioners will be produced who would have prescribing and injection rights. So why not give pharmacists the same responsibility as well. They do undergo 5 years training, surely they have enough education than for just dispensing.

 

[Hayden]

The idea of pharmacists being able to inject things like flu shots was something thrown around a bit. Along with Pharmacists being able to perform basic wound cleaning etc, and having basic prescribing rights for common things like antibiotics. Basically eating into GPs' pies.
But realistically I don't see this 'profession expansion' happening. GP's will fight tooth and nail to keep that bread-and-butter business of injections and antibiotics.

I can think of 5 or 6 GPs that would rather not have to do their vaccinations and simple Abx. I don't think it's a question of that, at least not for all GPs.

The problem is that those presentations are an opportunity for preventive health; outsourcing such patients (beyond clinic practice nurses, which I have seen work fantastically alongside GPs) would eliminate those incidental consultations.

 

[Hayden]

Not necessarily. When there is enough nurse training funds are available lots of nurse practitioners will be produced who would have prescribing and injection rights. So why not give pharmacists the same responsibility as well. They do undergo 5 years training, surely they have enough education than for just dispensing.

They may be highly trained, but they aren't trained in clinical diagnosis.

 

[thehairyfoot]

They may be highly trained, but they aren't trained in clinical diagnosis.

They are trained in basic diagnosis for anything to do with their S3 drugs. They are also trained to know when they should refer to a Dr quite a lot

 

[Hayden]

They are trained in basic diagnosis for anything to do with their S3 drugs. They are also trained to know when they should refer to a Dr quite a lot

But that's not equivalent to what I said is it.

 

[thehairyfoot]

But that's not equivalent to what I said is it.

No, it's not 'clincal' diagnosis. But it is more than 'just dispensing'.

 

[Hayden]

No, it's not 'clincal' diagnosis. But it is more than 'just dispensing'.

I never said they were trained only for dispensing.

 

[papmy006]

Not necessarily. When there is enough nurse training funds are available lots of nurse practitioners will be produced who would have prescribing and injection rights. So why not give pharmacists the same responsibility as well. They do undergo 5 years training, surely they have enough education than for just dispensing.

Nurses are clinicaly trained to inject. Pharmacists have none of that training. Only pharmacokinetics and dosage form design would come close, and they are just theroy subjects. Who would educate the qualified pharmacists on how to inject and diagnose for S4 medication (nurses shouldnt be allowed to perscribe these in my opinion)?

 

[sid]

CSU is doing vaccination training with it's 4th year pharmacy students starting this year. Act of hole punching and handling adverse events plus some other stuff. Does that count as 'clinical training'?

If pharmacists wanted to retrospectively add vaccination training to their skill set no doubt there will be bodies eager to offer some post-grad certification, similar to how optometrists are going back and doing the cert in occular therapies to get their prescribing rights.

Not that I want to be giving people injections, urgh, that's what nurses are for.

They were up to Phase II of trialling swine flu vaccinations in Tasmanian Pharmacies, but I believe nurses were doing the actual sticking. Don't know what the implications are for insurance.

 

[sid]

they are just theroy subjects.

Haha, tell that to the curriculum designers of pharmacy schools, then I wouldn't have to do long hours in the lab compounding dosage forms or designing dosing regimens.

 

[Hayden]

CSU is doing vaccination training with it's 4th year pharmacy students starting this year. Act of hole punching and handling adverse events plus some other stuff. Does that count as 'clinical training'?

If pharmacists wanted to retrospectively add vaccination training to their skill set no doubt there will be bodies eager to offer some post-grad certification, similar to how optometrists are going back and doing the cert in occular therapies to get their prescribing rights.

Not that I want to be giving people injections, urgh, that's what nurses are for.

They were up to Phase II of trialling swine flu vaccinations in Tasmanian Pharmacies, but I believe nurses were doing the actual sticking. Don't know what the implications are for insurance.

Sure, that's all clinical training. But I'm talking about the diagnostic process, with education and experience in history taking, examination, knowing appropriate investigations, and the formulation of a diagnosis. In a medical degree, they are trained in all this from day one. This doesn't happen in a pharmacy degree. It's not a question of one group not being capable or deserving, it's just that the adequate training does not exist - it's two separate jobs!

 

[sid]

I'm just addressing the no-injection training comment. Pharmacists diagnose small minor aliments relevant to drugs sold without prescription. There is now some scope for contination of therapy under the new 5th pharmacy agreement. But all the proding and poking and test ordering that you clinical diagnosticans do I'm more than happy to leave to you medical types.

 

[thehairyfoot]

Sure, that's all clinical training. But I'm talking about the diagnostic process, with education and experience in history taking, examination, knowing appropriate investigations, and the formulation of a diagnosis. In a medical degree, they are trained in all this from day one. This doesn't happen in a pharmacy degree. It's not a question of one group not being capable or deserving, it's just that the adequate training does not exist - it's two separate jobs!

I resent that statement. It seems you don't actually know what is involved in pharm degrees.
Or at least, in the QUT pharmacy degree that list above (History, examine, investigations, diagnosis/referal to GP etc etc) Was a HUGE focus in the pharmacy subject. They ARE starting to train pharmacists to diagnose because they DO want to justify more jobs.

 

[Hayden]

I resent that statement. It seems you don't actually know what is involved in pharm degrees.
Or at least, in the QUT pharmacy degree that list above (History, examine, investigations, diagnosis/referal to GP etc etc) Was a HUGE focus in the pharmacy subject. They ARE starting to train pharmacists to diagnose because they DO want to justify more jobs.

True, I am only basing my opinion on what my friends learned and they are graduates of only a few pharm courses, and not QUT.

But I absolutely do not believe that a pharmacy course gives a student enough training and clinical experience to be competent in diagnosing or managing any disease that walks through the door. Med students spend years in clinical placements getting the skills to do that, and even then they're not that good at it.

I'm not trying to disrespect the pharmacy profession, who I believe end up with a fountain of knowledge regarding drugs and patient care. I just logically don't see how pharmacists would be able to manage, for example, somebody who comes in keeled over in abdo pain besides sending them to their GP or ED. Where/why would they have learned the appropriate investigations, if they have no way of ordering them? What pharmacist would take a patient into the back room to check for Murphy's sign or rebound guarding? What pharmacist carries an ophthalmoscope handy? Or knows what to feel for on a DRE?

It just doesn't make sense to me. The same way I would never try and trump a pharmacist's knowledge in drug interactions, I don't see how a pharmacist attempting clinical diagnosis is a safe exercise. Not even triage nurses, with 20+ years experience in the ED seeing the initial presentation of all patients, actually try and diagnose them.